The influence of cultural participation and socio-economic background

on the school results

Master thesis of Khosrow Zeekamp (262458)Study: Arts and Cultural ScienceStudy program: Sociology of Arts and CultureSupervised by Dr. C. J. M. van EijckCo read by Professor Dr. A. M. Bevers

0

Table of contentsSubject PageAcknowledgments---------------------------------------------------------------------2

1. Introduction and the main research questions-----------------------------------3

1. 1. The Research aims and social relevancy--------------------------------------4

1. 2. Theories---------------------------------------------------------------------------4

1.3. Sub questions----------------------------------------------------------------------5

2. Theoretical framework-------------------------------------------------------------6

2. 1. Social, cultural, and economic capital-----------------------------------------6

2. 2. Habitus and field-----------------------------------------------------------------8

2.3. Cultural consumption and socialization---------------------------------------10

2. 4. Social cognitive theory----------------------------------------------------------13

2.5. Cultural participation theory----------------------------------------------------15

2.6. The theoretical similarities and differences-----------------------------------16

3. Hypotheses---------------------------------------------------------------------------18

4. Operationalization and the research model--------------------------------------19

4.1. Conceptualisation-----------------------------------------------------------------19

4.2. Methodology-----------------------------------------------------------------------21

4.3. Ethical issues-----------------------------------------------------------------------21

4.4. Reliability, dependability and time periods------------------------------------21

4.5. The data collection method------------------------------------------------------22

4.6. Research population--------------------------------------------------------------22

4.7. Research sample------------------------------------------------------------------23

5. Data analysis and the research results--------------------------------------------24

6. Conclusions--------------------------------------------------------------------------28

6.1. Reflection --------------------------------------------------------------------------29

Literature references--------------------------------------------------------------------30

Internet links and information sources-----------------------------------------------31

Attachments 1 & 2: Charts, figures, and the survey questionnaire in Dutch---33 and 48

1

Acknowledgments (a personal note)

Although I am not a practicing member of any religion, with this note I would like to thank God for my children Hana, Alborz, Aban and Azar as well as for the will and the opportunity which he has given me to learn. The teachers have played a pivotal role in my learning process. As a student, I feel very privileged to have had the chance to study and learn at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam. I want to thank Mr. van Eijck, for supervising me during my research. From the first day that I made my research proposal known, Mr. van Eijck offered me encouragement, useful information, practical tips, feedbacks, constructive suggestions and extra training with SPSS. His can do approach has had a motivating effect on me. I would like to thank Mr. Bevers, for teaching us the complex theories in a comprehensible manner that was recognizable as well as applicable to the social and cultural issues in today’s society. I would also like to thank Mrs. Halbertsma for teaching me the meaningful Dutch word: “koesteren”. I enjoyed the lectures about cultural heritage as well as cultural canon enormously. I think heritage and canon depend on each other. On the one hand, in order to recognize and protect cultural heritage, it has to go through the canonization process (process of inclusion on the list of cultural heritage). In other words, heritage needs to be canonized first. On the other hand the cultural canon needs cultural heritage to incorporate in the canonized list.

Thank you for the learning experience.

2

1. Introduction In today’s world, education is considered to be the key to personal as well as professional well-being. The Netherlands is a developed and multicultural nation that tries to find new ways in offering educational chances to all of its citizens in order for them to be able to develop their talents and ready themselves for the job market. According to the recent reports by the CBS (Central Bureau for Statistics), the numbers of Dutch students with an ethnic background who attend higher education have shown some growth in recent years, but relatively speaking the numbers of non-native students who attend higher education remain considerably lower than those of the native Dutch students. As for finishing their studies, the statistics also show that twenty four percent of the non-native Dutch students do not finish their studies and leave the colleges and universities without a diploma. CBS data also show that more female students graduate on time from higher education institutions than male students. However, just like in any other policy area, there are no easy solutions and answers to long-term problems. Achieving educational success may depend on many factors. Policy areas that fail to address different aspects of the problem will not be able to offer workable solutions.

The results of several studies that have already been conducted by sociologists of education and culture have established causality between social and economic background, cultural participation, and educational achievements. The statistics of the Central Bureau for Statistics as well as the findings of the other social and cultural researchers have inspired me to ask whether their findings also apply to the situation in Rotterdam in 2008. For my master thesis, I have conducted a quantitative explanatory research into the causal relationship between cultural participation, social and economic background, school results (average marks) and study level of students at Intermediate Vocational Schools (MBO), Vocational Colleges (HBO), and at the University level (WO). Within the context of this research, the main question that I have tried to answer is whether the cultural participation and the socio-economic background of the students affect their school results (average marks) and the level at which they study.

3

1. 1. The research aims and social relevancy

The aims of this research and its relevancy for the field of cultural studies are the following: the study ‘Sociology of Arts and Culture’ is about the relationship between society, culture, and its components such as arts, how culture has been formed in the past, and how it continues to be (re) formed. Education plays a pivotal role in the social and cultural formation process. As a social and cultural worker, and especially during the study Sociology of Arts and Culture, I have learned that education is society’s tool in preserving its ideals as well as a way to secure its future cultural and economic objectives. For that reason, in this research I have attempted to locate and identify the factors that play a role in the study results of the students at the Intermediate Vocational Schools (MBO), Vocational Colleges (HBO) and the University (WO). I have also attempted to find out whether the level of influence that those factors may have had on the study results of the students is of any significance. I consider empirical research to be a valuable tool in finding answers to the current questions within society. As every research is a learning phase within many research chains, every answer can lead to new questions. My master thesis research serves as a closing part of a learning phase and hopefully as the beginning of another. With this research I hoped to find new information, which may be useful to other people for their future research.

1. 2. Theories

For the theoretical framework of this research, I have used three main theories. The first is Pierre Bourdieu’s Field of Cultural Production which is about the social, cultural and economic capital, their production and their interdependency (Bourdieu 1993). The reasons for choosing Bourdieu’s theory is its relevance for different aspects of my main research questions which involve social, cultural and economic aspects. Bourdieu’s approach towards the questions regarding interaction between different capitals as well as between social, cultural, political, and economic fields are very broad and applicable to social class and education on the micro, macro as well as the mezzo level. The second theory is Social cognitive theory, by Bandura (1986). Bandura, approaches education from a psychological point of view, yet at the same time his focus on the learning processes within the social environment and early childhood development is also a multifaceted one which is neither subjectivist nor universalistic. In his theory, Bandura articulates how human behaviour is shaped in a way that resembles a cultural approach towards human activities. The third theory is Harry Ganzeboom’s cultural participation theory, which was published in his 1989 book, titled Cultuurdeelname in Nederland. Ganzeboom’s theory was based on the work of Bourdieu and on scientific research that was conducted in the Netherlands. Ganzeboom’s theory provides some insights not only into cultural participation in the Netherlands, but also into the general questions regarding the cultural participation choices that people make as well as the factors that influence peoples’ cultural participation. Furthermore, in the theoretical framework, I discuss existing scientific research reports.

4

1.3. Sub-questions

How are the school results affected by the students’ cultural participation and family background such as parental level of education and profession? How does parental cultural participation affect the students’ school results? Do gender and ethnicity affect the students’ school results? Does the schooling level of the students affect their school results? Which of these determinants are more important when their effects on school results are measured?

5

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter I will first describe and discuss Pierre Bourdieu’s work on Social, Cultural and Economic capital. Secondly, I will discuss other research results from different scholars in the area of culture and educational sociology as well as educational psychology to see whether there are similarities and differences in their views as far as cultural participation and education are concerned. In my analysis, I will try to see whether they confirm or refute Bourdieu’s views about social, economic and cultural capital and their reproduction. In that context, I will provide an analysis of Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory. Thirdly, I will discuss Harry Ganzeboom’s Cultural Participation Theory, which is based on Ganzeboom’s research about the important factors that play a role in cultural participation in the Netherlands. These will be followed by a short assessment with which I will summarize the similarities and differences among them. I will close this chapter with my main research questions which I will answer in the subsequent operationalization and conclusion chapters of this thesis.

2. 1. Social, cultural and economic capital

In daily life, when one thinks about capital, the first thing that comes to mind is its traditional meaning, the accumulated material possessions. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, the term capital has gained a much broader meaning. The term cultural capital was first introduced to the world of science and research by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. In his earlier works, he researched the taste development, educational and socio-economic class system in the French society. Although the concept of cultural capital was extensively explored and explained in his book The Field of Cultural Production (1993), its contents need to be read, analysed and interpreted in relation to his previous works, namely Distinction (1979) and The Genesis of the Concepts of Habitus and Field, sociocriticism perspectives II (1985). Bourdieu approached the study of culture and cultural production in a multifaceted manner that combined elaborate theoretical frameworks as well as rigorous empirical analysis. He approached and defined habitus as a system of structures which is continuously involved in a restructuring process that generates change without any presupposed condition in order to determine its outcomes. In other words, the conditions within the habitus are dynamic and change continuously, therefore the outcomes are also subject to change depending on the change of conditions within the habitus. In itself, habitus functions as a structuring structure that organizes the actions, practices, and perceptions which help to produce different social classes.

Class conditions are defined simultaneously by the intrinsic as well as rational conditions which they drive from. These conditions could also be seen as a differentiating system in which the social identity gets defined, produced, reproduced and perceived. Habitus also involves the ways in which different agents within the fields tend to approach different situations, act, react, and adapt to the field at a given time. The actions of agents in particular situations that are co-determined by the habitus are not necessarily always calculated, nor are they always conscious. The actions of the agents can be regulated without being subject to a universal rule. The actions of the agents can also be coordinated without having someone doing the coordination.

6

Culture refers to a shared way of life, beliefs, norms and values, thoughts, symbols and material goods such as the arts. But culture and its components are neither produced naturally nor are they passed naturally from one generation onto another. Culture and cultural products are invented, spread and passed on through formal and informal learning processes. One could not think of culture without looking at its production processes through one sort of education or another. The term capital can be seen from a broader commodity exchange system point of view. Cultural capital is one of the main forms of commodities within the exchange system, due to its symbolic as well as economic values because it can be obtained, transmitted, and exchanged. Cultural capital is not always accumulated intentionally. The type and the accumulation of cultural capital depends on the time period, contextual situations within society, as well as social class situation. The other main types of capital are social and economic capital as well as political and symbolic capital. The term social capital refers to social networks and people that individual actors know in different fields within society. The term economic capital refers to the material resources that individual actors possess such as money as well as objects and assets. Cultural capital refers to knowledge, skills, and capacities that are gained through formal as well as informal education through schooling or upbringing within the society, family and social networks. Symbolic Capital, refers to the things such as credits, the recognition, status and distinctions that one possesses.

Cultural capital can be described as follows. The embodied cultural capital consists of the type of capital that are transmitted through the process of socialization or informal education such as thoughts and beliefs. Objectified cultural capital consists of owning cultural goods and artefacts that carry meanings, such as owning a painting or a collection of books. Objectified cultural capital can possess symbolic, cognitive as well as economic value. For example, the collection of books that a family owns possesses symbolic value in terms of what it represents, cognitive value in terms of the availability of resources for learning, information, and knowledge, and economic value in terms of what those books cost as well as an indication of peoples ability to purchase those books. The institutionalised cultural capital is what is acquired through formal processes such as having enjoyed formal education and academic achievements that are recognized through credentials by formal institutions.

Basic linguistic competencies could be seen as embodied cultural capital, because language can be learned and transmitted at the very early age in the family and social environment. When an individual specialises in his or her native language or learns a new language through the educational institutions and earns a diploma for it, the acquired knowledge can be regarded as institutionalised cultural capital because it is achieved through learning institutions. However, diploma can also be considered as embodied cultural capital because of the things that have been learned during the learning process that has led to earning a diploma. Different sorts of capitals could be seen as convertible commodities. This means that their values can be converted to other types of capital. For example, cultural capital such as education can translate into more job opportunities, which could turn into economic capital. This example is just one of the many ways in which economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital can be reproduced. Although in his field theory Pierre Bourdieu discusses the strategic power struggles between and within the fields, he puts a lot of emphasis on family background as well as the power of art and educational institutions within the cultural

7

reproduction system to (re) produce cultural capital. Bourdieu’s analyses also include the social class system and the ability of the elites within society to reproduce their cultural, economic, and social monopoly through the arts organisations, institutions, as well as through education. He asserts that familiarity with the prestigious forms of culture, which can be gained through education, could guarantee access to what is perceived to be proper cultural socialisation, which could also be seen as a stepping-stone towards opportunities. Access to opportunities could result in reproduction of parent’s elite class. Gaining cultural capital depends on formal as well as the informal education for its (re) production. Informal education, which takes place outside formal organisations, could lay a fertile ground for future formal learning processes. For example, the children from higher social classes receive more opportunities in life so they are likely to do better at school.

Art education has been deeply institutionalised by higher educational institutions as well as by the governments. What makes Bourdieu’s field of cultural production theory unique is its broad applicability to different fields. Central to Bourdieu’s approach is his tendency to avoid the extreme subjectivist as well as objectivists approach to sociology. He is quoted to have voiced his opposition to those extremes by using the term “objectivity of subjective”.1 The objectivists claim that society is only to be understood as an external force that can limit or determine the actions of humans. Bourdieu asserts that any type of universal approach fails to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how and why human agents can exercise influence in creating as well as sustaining society. On the other hand, the subjectivist put too much of emphasis on the power of individuals to create and sustain society, independent of any constraining forces of society which may limit individuals’ abilities or their actions.

2. 2. Habitus and field

Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field help to articulate his approach to sociology. Habitus refers to acquired dispositions by human agents through life long processes of learning and socialization, which gives them the skills to respond to a variety of social situations. Although acquiring those skills can be considered a social activity which takes place within society, they cannot be reduced to a set of determinant rules that organize or govern social behaviour within society. The strategic flexibility of the agents within the fields not only helps to sustain society’s structure, it also helps to restructure the existing structures. Bourdieu approaches society as a set of hierarchically structured fields that are relatively autonomous, such as the fields of economics, politics, and culture. The position of each field can be seen in relation to the position of the agents that occupy it and visa versa. The field structures are not static but rather dynamic and they depend on the activities of the agents within each field for their production, survival, as well as their transformations. Each field has its own logic that serves as a guide with which it operates and harmonizes the actions of individual agents within it, without any conscious and planned concertation. The competition among the agents within the fields over the resources could be seen as impetus for change among the opposing poles of cultural production, in their struggle to gain power. Those opposing poles could be seen as the pole for transformation, the

1 Bourdieu. Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production, Essays on Art and Literature, p 4, Oxford: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers.

8

pole of preservation, the autonomous as well as heteronomous poles, which operate in a two dimensional manner. Those who operate on the horizontal dimension struggle against intellectual bourgeoisies and those within the vertical, more autonomous dimension struggle against more privileged and established groups. In the art world, the struggle between the new avant-gardes and the established avant-gardes usually takes place in the vertical dimension.

Autonomous

Preservation Transformation

Heteronomous

Those agents who operate within opposite poles of cultural production share corresponding interests among themselves. But the shared interests among the agents within each field could also be subject to change. Within each of those opposite poles there are different impetuses that form the dynamics for change or preservation of the field structure. The main struggle within the system of hierarchy is between what Bourdieu describes as those who follow the heteronomous principles and those who follow autonomous principles. The field that adheres to the heteronomous principles favours those with economic and political power, while the fields that adhere to the autonomous principles, consist of those who have less capital as well as those who are less reliant on economic success. The power struggle between the fields as well as the failure and success of each field depend on its level of relative autonomy and the ability to impose its own set of norms and sanctions on those who operate within or in proximity of different poles. The fields as well as the actors within them are constantly involved in position taking as well as the disposition process. The disposition process implies that there are winners and losers in the struggle for positions. The winners are those who gain and retain positions and the losers are those agents who lose their positions and have to struggle in order to find a new position.

Bourdieu asserts that, in order to understand any field, one needs to understand the history of its position as well as its disposition. The positions that are occupied have influence on the disposition process, but Bourdieu asserts that the disposition process has a life and efficiency of its own. The position taking as well as disposition process depend on many symbolic and institutionalised legitimisation processes. Those processes are never mechanical but rather mediated by the dispositional practices within and between the fields. Bourdieu’s approach towards the arts and society takes into consideration the internal and external structures, the interdependency of the field of cultural production, as well as the dynamic nature of the field structures. Different fields can be seen as functionally and structurally homologous systems.

Bourdieu examines the different aspects of cultural production within society in relation to each other. Bourdieu perceives and presents the field of cultural production as a field of political manoeuvring where the structural constraints of each field function as a constraining force that limits the disposition activities of the agents within the fields. Contrary to the agents within the avant-garde fields, the agents within the dominant fields are more homogeneous which implies that they share many

9

similar attributes in economic power, interests, life style and cultural practices. In his analysis, Bourdieu approaches the subjects from a macro perspective, yet he does not lose sight of the power of individual agents to change the balance of power within and between the fields.

There are comprehensible as well as constitutive aspects to all cultural capitals, their production and their legitimisation. In other words, cultural production not only depends on the plausible values of cultural products themselves, but also on the values that are ascribed to them by the institutions with the power to set the determinative rules and regulations. Where there is a production there is also a producer as well as a consumer. In his cultural capital theory, Bourdieu discusses not only the cultural products themselves, he also provides extensive and detailed analysis of the production, recognition and sacralisation processes by the art dealers and publishers as well as by the formal educational institutions. The educational institutions play a pivotal role in the production and sacralisation of cultural capital as well as its consumption. The role of the educational institutions in the consumption of cultural products is an indirect one, because recognising, understanding, and appreciating cultural products also depends on acquired affiliation and competencies which are often if not exclusively acquired through the life long socialisation and educational processes.

2. 3. Cultural consumption and socialization

Bourdieu(1993: 123) asserts that “it is impossible to understand the peculiar characteristics of a restricted culture without appreciating its profound dependence on the educational system, the indispensable means of its reproduction and its growth.” But the relationship between education and the field of cultural reproduction is not only a strengthening relationship, it can also be an undermining relationship. The reason for this contradictory relationship is that it can create harmony between positions and their occupants by creating intellectuals, while at the same time contributing to the class frictions by creating divergent and ambitious individuals who will take position as well as disposition. The struggles between agents within the fields find their roots not only in struggles over the accumulation of social, economic, and political power, but also over symbolic and cultural powers, which are often less manifest. Often, agents within different poles, different fields and different socio-economic positions possess corresponding cultural knowledge, preferences and practices due to the differences in the contextual conditions in each field as well as their transmission through formal and informal education.

In his analysis of social, cultural, and economic stratification, Bourdieu focuses on the discrete class fractions sharing similar educational, income and professional level, as well as their corresponding attributes and distinctions. Each social group has its unique worldview, similar experiences, common image and appropriation mechanism that contributes to positioning as well as disposition processes within different fields. Cultural and symbolic capital often have a latent and underlying life of their own and can manifest themselves via all sorts of positions, position taking, perceptions, selection, exclusion, rules and criteria’s which can determine, encourage or limit the access of individuals or groups within the society to acquiring cultural capital. The previously accumulated cultural capital and the existence of cultural capital at home

10

among the family members can be considered as a necessary tool with which future cultural capital can be acquired without unnecessary delays and obstacles. In other words, parental education, the social economic environment has an influence on the children’s learning process at school. In their parental homes, children who come from higher social economic classes have learned the norms and values and the rules of interaction that are closer to the norms, values and interaction rules at school. Therefore, they feel more comfortable in the school environment and as result they achieve better school results in comparison with those children who come from lower social economic backgrounds. Children with educated parents are more likely to see the benefit of achieving better school results.

The formal education that leads to a diploma can also be seen as something that institutionalizes cultural capital. It functions as proof of knowledge as well as the legitimisation of titles that the individual agents carry. As a form of institutionalised capital, diplomas also function as symbols that contribute to the agent and field hierarchy, the hierarchical consolidation as well as the hierarchical restructuring in the broader field structures within the society.

The first and foremost scientific role is that theories need to be tested in order to find out whether they are partially or fully valid. Societies differ from one another. They differ not only in what they consider as important and relevant to learn, but also in the way they offer educational chances to their people. Beside the contextual differences that are related to physical boundaries, the changes within a society over time require us to re-examine the existing theories from time to time to see whether they are still valid or not. Due to Bourdieu’s meticulously articulated social, cultural and economic capital theory, it can be applied to different areas of arts, culture, education, and society as a whole. Bourdieu’s assertion of cultural reproduction through education as well as the convertibility of different types of capital, has inspired many scientists to test his social, cultural and economic capital in the educational field at different times in different cities and in different countries. In his 1986 research on the effect of parental cultural capital on the educational attainments of students in the Netherlands, Paul M. De Graaf, came to the conclusion that different aspects of Bourdieu’s social, economic and cultural capital theory also applied to the situation in the Netherlands. In his conclusion, De Graaf pointed out two things; firstly, the cultural as well as the financial resources had an effect on the educational level of the school children. He also explained that the social environment in which the children grow up should be considered within the broader context. One possible interpretation of De Graaf’s explanation is that the social and pedagogical environment that the children grow up in also depends on the cultural and financial resources of their parents.

De Graaf also acknowledged that as far as the impact of cultural and financial resources on education is concerned, the accent can move from time to time, from one type of resource to another, from cultural capital to economic capital and vice versa. Since the 1950s, the Dutch government has made free education available for those who want to study. Although the existence of some level of “free education” as well as the decrease in the level of dependency on parental financial resources in the Netherlands can not be denied, the free access to education is very relative due to the early access to better schools and informal educational activities for those with more financial resources. For example those children who grow up in poverty, in the segregated neighbourhoods and schools, have less access to cultural activities and

11

therefore are less prepared for the formal educational activities that follow. In other words: when two children of potentially equal talent, grow up in two different social economic environments, where one of them has the chance to attend music lessons while the other one has to fight with fifty other children over his or her turn to play football in the local playground, the one who has had the chance to attend music classes has an advantage in developing his musical skills compared to the other child who has little or no previous music knowledge. The early differentiation in the educational system contributes to the limitation of access to higher levels of education, follow-up studies, and training. Secondly, De Graaf also explained that the parental cultural resources are strongly correlated with their children’s cultural habits so it does not matter whether it is measured under the category cultural resources of parents or cultural resources during the early educational development of school children.

When measuring the effect of financial and cultural instruments on the students’ educational achievements, De Graaf asserts that when data about the financial and cultural instruments and talents are available, they could all be included and analyzed in a multivariate model. Through multivariate analysis, the relative importance of different variables can be measured and compared at the same time. To support his assertion, De Graaf points out, that compared to few decades ago when economic capital was considered to be more important, the effect of parental cultural capital on the educational achievements of their children has now become more important than the effect of parental economic capital.

In his multifaceted research, De Graaf underlines the importance of including different indicators in research, such as pedagogic climate, language climate, parental expectations, and cultural and socio-economic background. His multivariate approach sheds light on different influences that affect the educational attainment of the students. In his closing arguments, by reflecting on his research models, De Graaf introduces three types of influences, which play a role in the educational attainment. They not only confirm Bourdieu’s social, economic and cultural theories, they also remind us of Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory which I will discuss in the following paragraphs. The three types of influences are; the influence of financial resources (economic capital), the influence of cultural resources (cultural capital), and the influence of talent which has to come from the individual. However, De Graaf showed some degree of caution in interpreting the influence of talent on educational attainments. He also pointed to the limitations of the notion that talent may play a role in the school results by saying that the differences in achievements among the school children grow during children’s enrolment in elementary school. De Graaf called that a cumulative effect. This leads us to believe that possession of some cultural capital in the form of competencies that already exist, can lead to acquiring and accumulating more cultural capital in the future.Similar research by Paul DiMaggio (1982) also confirms Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory. However, DiMaggio’s research results showed a stronger correlation between the cultural participation of the students and their school results compared to the weaker correlation between parental cultural capital and school results of the students. However, one may argue that perhaps the weaker correlation between parental cultural capital and school results of the students may be due to the more dynamic social mobility environment in the United States of America. 2. 4. Social cognitive theory

12

In the past, many scientists, and in particular those within the field of psychology, have described human behaviour from a psychodynamic perspective which was based on the view that human behaviour had to do with unconscious inner drives, impulses, and instincts. However, that point of view has been criticized and undermined on empirical grounds because of its failure to provide adequate answers to the fact that some of the inner dynamics and drives are actually instigated by the conditions that exist outside of the individuals. Social cognitive theory approaches behaviour from the conditions that determine the specific as well as general human behaviour. Social cognitive theory refutes the notion that human actions are only based on inner aspects of agents such as drives and instincts. The argument that the proponents of social cognitive theory provide is that people change their behaviour patterns during their lives, in order to adapt to the age related physical conditions as well as the changes in life’s demands within society.

In his social cognitive theory, Albert Bandura (1986) takes the view that human behaviour is neither determined by inner drives nor by the external conditions alone. The individual actions can be conceptualized in three different ways, autonomous agency, mechanical agency and interactive agency. Social cognitive theory holds that human behaviour is formed in a triadic reciprocal manner through mutual actions between personal factors, environment factors as well as the behaviour itself. According to the social cognitive theory, humans do not act entirely independent of their environment and therefore they cannot be considered as totally autonomous. Bandura explains the nature of individuals in terms of possessing some basic capabilities such as symbolizing capabilities, forethought capabilities, vicarious capabilities, self-regulatory capabilities as well as self-reflective capabilities.

The symbolizing capabilities allow humans to understand meanings as well as to continuously create meanings. Humans do not only solve problems by merely reacting to them and facing the consequences, they also use their symbolic capabilities to solve problems. The development and use of language can be considered a form of symbolic ability. The human ability to plan a course of action in a particular situation can be considered a forethought capability. The transactional nature of the human agents allows them to plan the course of their actions based on their estimations of the outcome of activities, even though the outcomes of activities never correspond exactly to their original estimation of it.

The ability of humans to imitate actions of others can be seen as a vicarious capability. The symbolic environment leaves individuals with many impressions of social realities. Through the symbols and the images that are transmitted through the media, such as ideological information about norms and values, the latest trends, attitudes, and behaviours, the media help people cope with different things as well as generate cultural practices. People’s symbolizing capabilities enable them to respond to the images that they receive through the media and other channel of symbolic representations. The vicarious capability not only allows school children to imitate the cultural participation patterns of their parents, but it also enables them to learn and practice the cultural participation patterns of other people whom they come in contact with, such as from their fellow students at school as well as from the images that are transmitted to them through the media and within the society.

13

The human ability to set internal standards to live up to is called self regulatory capability which Bandura(1986: 21) explains as a “self evaluative reaction to individual’s own action”. Self-reflective capabilities of humans allow them to analyze their own past actions and experiences, which they will use to learn from. From the cultural scientific point of view, we could see those basic capabilities as pivotal instruments in shaping culture and societies. In his theory, Bandura asserts that agents face actions and activities within their social environment, which causes them to act in a reflexive manner. The humans cannot be viewed as “ mechanical conveyers of animating environmental forces”(p.12). The proponents of a human mechanical agency model assume automaticity of actions while, according to social cognitive theory, the influences that are exerted by the social environment on the individuals operate through cognitive processes. During the cognitive processes, humans engage in transactions with the external influences that originate in their social environment. This aspect of social cognitive theory reminds us of Bourdieu’s approach to agents within the field, which recognizes the powers of different forces within the field while also recognizing the power of action by the individual agents, not merely as a follower but also as transactional agents with power to influence the structure of the fields as well as the outcome of the power struggles within and between the fields. Bandura, explains that in order to understand how the results of certain actions or situations can affect behaviour, we need to examine their related cognitive processes. According to Bandura, cognitive processes are not so obvious and observable. They are, however, indirectly traceable through verbal communication. Words are symbols that are considered as valuable tools with which, within the social science, scientist conduct their interviews in order to gather data and analyze information that they extract from the data.

When supported by incentives, the small changes that may seem insignificant at first can have a lasting impact on the relationship between the individual and society. That impact can help to sustain new behaviours. For example, when parents try to help the children who show signs of withdrawal by bringing them in contact with other people as well as art activities, they learn to derive satisfaction from the new relationships. Later, even if the adults stop supporting the interactive behaviour, the children tend to continue to maintain their sociability and enjoyment of the art activities. In other words, the determination of with whom an individual must interact is often socially constructed. Parents teach their children to avoid certain people or certain types of situations. People can learn new skills and behaviours through observation of others.

Part of the process of observational learning is identification (similar meaning system, similar motives, norms and values). However, the learning can take different forms and lead to generative rules, cognitive competencies and judgmental standards. “Social transactions involve mutual influences, individuals can exercises some control over how their efforts are received”(Bandura: 1986: 12). Bandura’s emphasis on the observational learning supports the notion that parental cultural tastes and practices can contribute to the development of cultural participation patterns of their children. Moreover, the incentives from outside help to cultivate the intrinsic interests for one type of behaviour or another or for one type of art and culture participation or another. Bandura’s social cognitive theory makes it emphatically clear by pointing out that children are not born interested in opera or in solving mathematical questions. They learn to enjoy or practice certain types of cultural activities from their social surroundings, at first at home from their parents and later from their teachers,

14

classmates, and other people that they come in contact with as they grow up and become adults.

2. 5. Cultural participation theory

In his research about cultural participation in the Netherlands, Harry Ganzeboom(1989) searched for determinant factors which play a role in cultural participation among the Dutch citizens. He approached the cultural participation from a social class angle. In his analysis, he described four major determinant factors that influence the level of cultural participation in the Netherlands to various degrees. The four determinant factors can be described as the intellectual competencies factor, the time factor, the money factor and the social status related considerations. These factors not only play a determinant role in the level of cultural participation, but they also play a role in the type of cultural participation.

Ganzeboom described cultural participation as a way of processing information. This description applies to all types of cultural participation, regardless of whether it is listening to classical music, going to a museum or to the theatre. People always process some information when they are participating in cultural activities. The level of information processing depends on the complexity of the art and cultural activity as well as the ability of individuals to process them. The level of appreciation for the art and cultural activity also depends on their level of complexity. There are two types of complexities: semantic and formal complexities. Semantic complexities are the embedded symbols and their meanings while formal complexities are more visually or audibly more verifiable ones such as music notes or colours in paintings. Ganzeboom claimed that two factors play a role in one’s ability to process information.

The first factors are natural abilities and the second factor is cultural knowledge and skills that the participants may possess. The natural abilities are the natural talents that some people are born with which enable them to understand, learn, or practice arts better, such as natural musical talents. The cultural knowledge and skills are subdivided and can be attributed to three things: a) education; b) the pedagogical environment; c) the individual experiences of the participants in the cultural activities. Education is the training that people receive at their schools in the form of art classes and extra curricular art related activities which enable people to understand and participate in the cultural activities. Art orientation at home can also influence the individuals’ art participation as well as their ability to process complex information. Through formal education people are trained to recognize, understand, appreciate and in some cases practice art. However, people obtain their first encounter with the arts from their parents. When parents listen to a certain type of music at home, their children may like it and continue to listen to that type of music later when they grow up. For example, many children in the ethnic minority communities enjoy listening to ethnic music even though they also listen to Dutch pop as well as other types of music. While the ethnic minority children grow up exposed to Dutch culture, they still learn about their parents’ culture and are therefore more likely to appreciate it than children who are not familiar with this type of cultural product. Although children copy some of the cultural consumption patterns from their parents, their individual experiences at school or in the social environment

15

help to broaden, refine, or redefine their own cultural consumption patterns. In spite of Ganzeboom's acknowledgment that his hypothesis may seem tautological by explaining cultural participation from cultural participation, he also makes a strong case that practice makes perfect. In other words: when people participate in cultural activities, through experience they build up their level of cultural competencies and as a result they enlarge their interests, understanding and appreciation of culture and cultural activities. For example, the practice of reading improves reading skills as well as the competency to process information.

Ganzeboom explained that intellectual competencies to decode, understand, and appreciate the arts and cultural activity play a pivotal role in the type and the level of art and cultural participation. Ganzeboom named the social status related considerations such as the way people perceive cultural participation as well as how cultural participation might be perceived by others, as the other important determinant in cultural participation. For example when people participate in a certain cultural activity in order to be admitted to a group or social class and gain acceptance by the members of that group or social class.

According to Ganzeboom, time is the third influential factor in cultural participation. However, he pointed out that the time factor has a negative influence on the cultural participation, which means that when people have less time, they participate less in cultural activities and when they have more time they don’t always start to participate in cultural activities. Harry Ganzeboom described the money factor as the least influential factor in the cultural participation of individuals. Although he acknowledged that some activities, such as buying books, ask for more financial sacrifice, he pointed out that the smaller effect of money on cultural participation was mostly due to the fact that the arts and culture sector was at the time of his research heavily subsidized and therefore the impact of money on cultural participation was limited.

2. 6. The theoretical similarities and differences

Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory and Harry Ganzeboom’s cultural participation theory seem to support Pierre Bourdieu’s social, economic and cultural capital theories, even though there are still some minor differences among them. Although Bandura does not get into the social class stratification discussion, Bourdieu, Bandura and Ganzeboom, be it in different words, relate the patterns of human action to early childhood orientations and processes of acquiring knowledge through the formation of perception, imitation, experience, forethought, regulative as well as reflective abilities which people use in order to determine their future actions. What Bourdieu describes as embodied cultural capital, Bandura describes as social cognitive processes that begin at an early age, while Ganzeboom refers to it as intellectual competencies. It must be mentioned that Ganzeboom divides the intellectual competencies in two seemingly separate types, namely cultural competencies and natural competencies. Ganzeboom asserts that cultural participation can be the result of social status considerations. In other words: people may decide to participate in a cultural activity in order to gain admittance into and acceptance by another social group. This reminds us of the transactional nature of the human agents, their ability to be influenced by the field within the society in which they live, as well

16

as the ability to exert influence on society in an interactive manner. Bandura’s description of human action as triadic reciprocal which is the result of mutual action between personal factors, environment factors and behaviour factor, bears a strong resemblance to Bourdieu’s assertion that the agent, the agent’s actions, and the dynamic conditions within the field play a role in organisation and appropriation of the field. In Ganzboom’s theory, the money factor is especially justified in 1980’s. He considered the money factor to play a less determinant role in the cultural participation due to the heavy state subsidies, which made some cultural activities more affordable for the general public in the Netherlands in the nineteen eighties. On the other hand, Bourdieu’s approach to capital in general - and economic capital in particular - transcends time and place. This last point has to do with Bourdieu’s emphasis on convertibility of the capitals as well as the changing dynamics within the fields. Boudieu’s theory recognizes the continuous shifting of power as well as the exchange value of different capitals within the habitus.

These theories lead to the main question of this research which I will provide an answer to in the subsequent chapters. The main question is whether the cultural participation and the socio-economic background of the students affect their school results (average marks) and their schooling levels.

3. Hypotheses

17

Bourdieu claimed that social, cultural, and economic capital of the parents play a determining role in the educational achievement of their children. Bourdieu’s assertion leads me to test his theory with the following hypotheses in order to find out whether his assertions are still valid or not.

The first hypothesis: There is a causal relationship between the cultural participation of the students and their school results (average scores). In other words: cultural participation affects school results.

Bandura claimed that people have vicarious capabilities which can be useful in their learning processes. Children learn by consciously or unconsciously copying different habits of their parents, including aspects of their parents’ cultural participation. For example, when children grow up in a pedagogical environment in which they see their parents read often, these children are likely to read more often themselves when they grow up. Reading is an important activity that can help people develop more cultural competencies. Subsequently, the ability to read and understand more complex texts may affect school results positively. This leads to the following hypothesis.

The second hypothesis: The cultural participation of the parents affects the school results of their children.

The third hypothesis: The socio-economic background of the students (parents’ education and profession as well as the number of books that parents own) affects their school results.

The fourth hypothesis: The socio-economic background affects the schooling level of the students.

Ganzeboom mentioned that the number of books that people own is an indication of both cultural and economic capital. This leads to the following hypothesis.

The fifth hypothesis: The parents’ level of education and profession affect the number of books that they own.

The sixth hypothesis: The school results of female students are higher than the school results of male students. But when we take into consideration the cultural participation of the students, the effect of gender on the school results will not be significant.

The seventh hypothesis: The school results of native Dutch students are higher than the school results of the non-native Dutch students. But when we take into consideration the effect of students’ socio economic background and cultural participation, the effect of ethnicity on the school results will not be significant.

The eighth hypothesis: There is a positive correlation between the schooling level and the reading habits of the students.

4. Operationalization and research model

18

Research model

The above research model provides a visual impression of the research subject, the variable categories, and the causal directions. The social economic background as well as the cultural participation variables came first in time. Therefore I have approached them as independent variables (the possible causes). The average school result is the dependent variable. In relation to school results and the reading habits of the students, the schooling level can be seen as independent variable. In the model as a whole, it is an intermediary variable, as it is itself affected by socio-economic background and both students’ and parental cultural participation.

4. 1. Conceptualisation

During the operationalization process, I have used the following definitions as indicators to identify, measure, and analyse the results. These definitions have been translated into the survey questions in Dutch. The results of the survey have been processed and analysed statistically using the computer program SPSS.

Social and economic background:

1- The highest completed education of the fathers.

2- The highest completed education of mother.

3- Father’s level of profession.

4- Mother’s level of profession.

19

Social economic Background of the student (Parental education, profession as well as the number of books at the parental home)

Student and parental cultural participation

School results (the average score from the last study block)

School level

5- The number of books at the parents’ home. Books cost money and space. The number of books that people own could be seen as an indication of purchasing power (economic) as well as availability of information in the pedagogical environment (socio).

Cultural participation of the parents: 1- How often the student’s parents listened to different music genres such as

Classical music, Top 40 (Pop), Dutch language Pop, Country, Reggae, Jazz, Blues, Folk Music, Rock, Metal, Techno, Rap, Hip Hop, lounge, Soul, R& B, Dance, Disco, Dance Hall, Ethnic music (music from other countries)

2- The number of times that the student’s parents participated in different categories of cultural activities during the past twelve months, such as the number of visits to the museums and historical buildings, as well as participation in the community theatre, professional theatre, ballet, cabaret, cinema, classical music concerts, pop music concerts.

3- Parental reading habits. The average hours of reading per week.

Cultural participation of students:

1- Students listening to different music genres: Classical, Top 40 (Pop), Dutch Pop, Country, Reggae, Jazz, Blues, Folk music, Rock, Metal, Techno, Rap, Hip Hop, lounge, Soul, R& B, Dance, Disco, Dance Hall, Ethnic music.

2- The level of participation in the cultural activities during one year prior to the latest school results. This was sub divided into different categories of cultural participation, such as the number of visits to the museums and historical buildings, as well as participation in the community theatre, professional theatre, ballet, cabaret, cinema, classical music concerts, pop music concerts.

3- Average hours of reading non-study related literature by the student per week during the past year.

The average school results of the students:

The average school results of all the subjects from the latest study block. See attachment 2, the survey questionnaire.

20

4. 2. Methodology

For this research I choose the explanatory quantitative approach. Considering the large number of cases I had to analyse, I found the empirical quantitative approach to be more suitable for answering my research questions. The quantitative approach allows me to use various numerically measurable variables in a uniform manner. It also allows me to process and analyse a large amount of data more accurately. The empirical quantitative model offers the chance to establish or refute causality between different variables. Due to the standardized operationalization procedures, the analysing and replications procedures will be more systematic. The quantitative research model is not only more suitable for analysing hard (numerical) data, but it also provides the chance to identify the level of impact that independent variables may have on the dependent variables. One other aspect of this method is the fact that it minimizes the chance for socially desirable answers by the respondents, because of standardization of the survey questions as well as the high level of anonymity which for example a face to face and one on one interview does not have.

4. 3. Ethical issues

Prior to conducting my survey, I made it clear that participation in the survey was not compulsory. I also underlined the fact that the survey would be processed in a totally anonymous manner. The distribution of the survey questionnaires was entirely open and transparent and took place in or near lecture halls as well as in the library, computer and canteen areas of the Erasmus University, Hogeschool INHOLLAND, Hogeschool Rotterdam, Albeda, and Zadkine Rotterdam. I emphasised the necessity of filling in the questionnaires independently as well as reminded the students that I remained a little further up in case they had a question. Many scientific surveys take place by mail. Although practically speaking it would have been easier if I could remain in the class while the students filled up the questionnaires, there are no scientific rules requiring the researcher who conducts a survey to remain at hand. When possible, I collected the survey questionnaires back during the breaks and in some cases immediately after the lessons. In order to secure maximum privacy and avoid causing people to give socially desirable answers, the collection of the survey questionnaires took place in a discreet manner in a box.

4. 4. Reliability, validity, and time periods

In order for the research results to be valid, the research questions as well as the operationalization process had to meet the reliability and validity criteria(Seale: 2004). In order for the research procedure to be reliable, it had to produce consistent results. Reliability means dependability and consistency not only in the conceptualisation of all the constructs, but also in the numerical results. In other words the indicators that are used to measure the social reality as well as the numerical results may not vary from the social reality. In order to address the reliability questions, I numbered and registered all the survey questionnaires and after each entry checked to see if the data were correctly entered. Furthermore, due to multivariate approach, I used multiple indicators in the research design. This research had to meet the following types of validity: First of all it had to meet the face validity

21

criterion, which means that the questions and indicators had to make sense. In other words, they had to seem and sound logical enough to produce conclusive results. The second validity criterion was the internal validity, which means that the research design has to be plausible and correct. In order to be able to establish causality, the time order of variables is very important. The independent variables with which the dependent variables were to be explained or predicted had to be first in time. In this case, the cultural participation had to take place prior to the school tests; however that alone was not sufficient enough as the social economic situation of parents was also a factor to consider. Another aspect of internal validity that this research had to meet was the exclusion of any other intervening variable that is not accounted for within the operationalization and the research model which may have had an influence on the results one way or the other. For example through a multivariate approach, I could test whether gender and school results were related or whether the relation between gender and school results was merely caused by other factors. The fourth type of validity was the external validity, which means that in order to be able to generalise the results, the research sample had to be representative enough. Therefore within the research sample, I strived to reach a diverse and equal number of female, male, native, non-native students from the three school levels.

4. 5. The data collection method

For this research, the data collection method was in the form of a survey. I conducted the survey among the students in or near classes, on different educational levels and, within each educational level, different years (first year students, second year students, and third year students).

4. 6. Research population

My research populations was the following: 1- Students who attend intermediate vocational schools in Rotterdam (MBO); 2- Students who attend vocational colleges in Rotterdam (HBO); 3- Students who attend university bachelor studies at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam(WO). The school locations where I conducted my survey:

22

- Erasmus Universiteit Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam

- Hogeschool RotterdamMuseumpark 40, 3015 CX Rotterdam

- Hogeschool RotterdamKralingse Zoom 91, 3063 ND Rotterdam

- Hogeschool INHOLLANDPosthumalaan 90, 3072 AG Rotterdam

- Albeda collegeRosestraat 1101, 3071 AL Rotterdam

- Albeda collegeWeena 743, 3013 AL Rotterdam

- Albeda collegePrins Alexanderlaan 41, 3068 PN Rotterdam

- Zadkine Benthemstraat 6, 3032 AA Rotterdam

4. 7. Research sample

I approached more than 500 students, 300 of whom completed and returned the survey questionnaires fully, so I ended up processing the 300 questionnaires that were completed in full. The research sample was chosen according to stratified sampling methods, among the student populations at Intermediate vocational schools (MBO), Vocational colleges (HBO) and University (WO) levels. I surveyed equal numbers of female and male students as well as equal numbers of native and non-native Dutch students at different study levels. I did that by counting the number of respondents at the end of each day. When one group was less represented in my sample the next day I approached that group more intensively. The type of study that the students followed was not included in the survey questionnaire, but I went to different school buildings, at different times and tried to approach as many students as possible from different study types at each school level.

Research sample The school level

Male Female

Native students

Non native students

1 year

2 year

3 year

WO 50 50 50 50 37 34 29HBO 50 50 50 50 30 30 40MBO 50 50 50 50 34 38 28

The cultural participation responses were gathered from the respondents as individual variables. However, in order to analyse these items more efficiently, the listening habits of the students and their parents to different music genres were bundled together as factor variables, based on their underlying relationship, and then included in the multivariate regression models. For example, in the attachment 1, chart 1, we can see that the students who listen to pop music, often don’t listen to classical music while those who listen to Dutch pop, don’t listen to blues, jazz, hip hop and rap music. In chart 2, we can see that mothers who listen to lounge also listen to top 40 music, while those mothers who listen to folk music, also listen to dance hall music. In chart

0

3, we can see that fathers who listen to disco don’t like (heavy)metal, while the fathers who listen to (hard)rock, Dutch pop and country, don’t listen to ethnic music. We do not need to include all these individual taste variables separately if we find such patterns that can be entered into the analyses as single scale-like variables.

5. Data analysis and the research results

I have used the program SPSS to conduct a multivariable statistical analysis. The data of the survey were entered and processed in SPSS. I used multivariable regression analysis for most of the questions. The measurement scales of the most important variables such as the number of cultural participation of students and their parents, the educational and professional level of parents were compatible with regression analysis. Depending on the type of question and the type of hypothesis, I have approached the data analysis in the following manner: a) measuring basic numerical differences in de data; b) measuring the basic technical correlations; c) measuring causal relation (causal association). In order to establish causal relation, the independent variable had to come first in time, there had to be a significant level of correlation between the two variables and there had to be no other plausible intervening variable.

The first hypothesis: There is a causal relationship between the cultural participation of the students and their school results (average scores). In other words: cultural participation affects school results.

The results: The results of the regression analysis show that some cultural activities by the students affect the school results significantly. See attachment 1, chart 4. For example the students’ average hours of non-school related reading per week had the strongest positive effect on the students’ average marks. The standardised coefficient shows 0.34. Visiting museums was the second cultural activity that had a positive effect on the students’ average marks. The standardized coefficient for visiting museums is 0.17. With a standardized coefficient that stands at - 0.116, listening to techno, soul and ethnic music had a negative effect on the school results. The results show that cultural participation by students affects the students’ school results. However, in order to be able to establish definitive causal relations, we have to see whether those effects remain significant when we include parental cultural participation and the socio-economic background in the regression model.

The second hypothesis: The cultural participation of the parents affects the school results of their children.

1

The results: The results of the regression analysis (see Chart 5) show that some types of cultural participation by parents affected the school results of their children. For example, factor 2 (fathers listening to classical and reggae music) had a positive influence on the school results of their children. The standardized coefficient for father’s listing to classical and reggae music was 0.25. Fathers’ average hours of reading per week also had a clear positive effect on the school results of their children. The standardized coefficient for fathers’ average hours of reading per week was 0.182. The students’ fathers going to museums also had a positive effect on their school results. The standardized coefficient for fathers going to museums is 0.167. Listening to folk or dance hall music by mothers affected the school results of their children negatively. The standardized coefficient for mothers listening to folk and dance music was -0.11. See attachment 1, chart 5. Although the results of this analysis show that cultural participation by parents affect the students’ school results, in order to be able to establish causal relations we have to see whether those effects continue to be significant when we include the socio-economic background in the regression model.

The third hypothesis: The socio-economic background of the students (parents’ education and profession as well as the number of books that parents own) affects their school results.

The results: In the attachment 1 chart 6, the result of multivariate regression analysis show that the socio-economic background of the students has a clear positive influence on their school results. The standardized effect of fathers’ education is 0.29. For the number of books that the parents own, the standardized coefficient is 0.23 and for mother’s profession the standardized coefficient is 0.24. It is noteworthy that the combination of socio-economic background, cultural participation of the parents, and the cultural participation of the students has a large effect on the students’ school results. The adjusted R Square for the combined regression model is 0.47 which means that 47 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is caused by the set of independent variables (parental and students’ cultural participation as well as the socio-economic background). Attachment 1, chart 7 shows that fathers’ education had a positive effect on the school results with a standardized coefficient of 0.24, while mothers’ education had a negative effect on the school results of their children with a standardized coefficient that stands at -0.24. The standardized coefficient for mothers’ profession is 0.26. Other variables with significant effects are the number of books that parents own (beta = 0.25), student’s average reading per week (beta = 0.12), mothers’ average reading per week (0.13), fathers’ going to museums (0.13) or listening to dance hall (-0.11), mothers’ listening to folk and dance hall music (-0.10), and students listening tot top 40 rather than classical music (0.21).

When we compare the unstandardized coefficients of the students and parental cultural participation before and after the inclusion of socio-economic variables, we see some changes in the dynamics among the variables. We can see that some types of cultural participation by students and their parents continue to affect the students’ school results, the effects of some types of cultural participation on the school results gain significance while others lose their significance. For example, after the inclusion of socio-economic variables, the unstandardized coefficients for the students’ average hours of non study related reading per week decreased but did not diminish (the

2

unstandardized coefficients went down from 0.17 to 0.06). However, the effect of the students going to museum as well as listening to techno, soul, and ethnic music on the school results, disappeared after the inclusion of socio-economic variables. After the inclusion of the socio-economic variables, the students’ factor 3 (those who preferred to listen to Top 40 rather than to classical music) showed positive influence on the school results (the unstandardized coefficients went from insignificant to a significant 0.17.). After the inclusion of the socio-economic background variables, the effect of fathers going to museum on the school results of their children decreased slightly but remained positive and significant (the unstandardized coefficients went from 0.42 to 0.32). However, the effect of father’s average hours of reading on their children’s school results lost its significance after the inclusion of socio-economic variables. The negative effect of mothers’ listening to folk and dance hall music on the school results of their children remained significant (its unstandardized coefficient went from -0.09 to -0.08); while the effect of mothers’ average hours of reading per week on their children’s school results became significant after the inclusion of socio-economic variables. After the inclusion of the socio-economic variables, the unstandardized coefficient of mothers’ average hours of reading per week became 0.07. These results leads me to accept the first, second and third hypotheses. Aspects of students’and parents’cultural participation as well as socio-economic background all play a role as determinants of student’s school results. Socio-economic background seems most conducive to good school results, together with the number of books owned by the parents and – surprisingly – students’ preference for popular rather than classical music.

The fourth hypothesis: The socio-economic background affects the schooling level of the students.

The results: The socio-economic background has a positive effect on the students’ schooling level. The standardized coefficient for fathers’ education is 0.24, for fathers’ profession it is 0.31. See attachment 1, chart 8. Considering theses result, the fourth hypothesis is accepted.

The fifth hypothesis: The parents’ level of education and profession affect the number of books that they own.

The results: The level of education of fathers and mothers as well as the fathers’ level of profession affect the number of books that they own. The standardized coefficient for mothers’ education is 0.21. The standardized coefficient for fathers’ education is 0.50. The standardized coefficient for fathers’ profession is 0.06. As we can see in the attachment 1, chart 9, the impact of parental schooling level on the number of books that they own, is larger than the impact of fathers’ profession. Considering these results, the fifth hypothesis is accepted

The sixth hypothesis: The school results of female students are significantly higher than the school results of the male students. But when we take into consideration the cultural participation of the students, the effect of gender on the school results will not be significant.

The results: Attachment 1, chart 10 shows that the school results of the female students are slightly higher than the school results of male students. The average

3

school result for female students was 7.28 and the average school result for the male students was 7.08. Attachment 1, figure 1, shows that the largest difference in the school results among male and female students was at the top, as more female students managed to get an average mark that was higher than 9. The Cramer’s V correlation between gender and students’ average school results in groups is 0.18 which suggests a mild positive correlation between gender and school results. As we can see in the attachment 1 chart 11, compared to male students, female students also read more. The average hours of non study related reading per week was 3.04, while among the male students the average hours of non study related reading per week was 2,72. In the attachment 1, figure 2, we can see the distribution pattern of average hours of reading per week among the male and female students. The largest difference in average hours of reading per week among male and female students is in the 2 hour range. More male students spend two hours per week reading non study related books than female students. While more female students read between 4 to 6 hours per week. About the same number of male and female students read 7- 8 hours per week. When we measure the influence of gender on the school results, the unstandardised coefficient is 0.204. See attachment 1, chart 12. However, when we consider gender together with cultural participation of the students, the effect of gender on the school results is reduced to 0.133 which is no longer significant. See attachment 1, charts 13. Considering these results, the sixth hypothesis is accepted.

The seventh hypothesis: The school results of native Dutch students are higher than the school results of the non-native Dutch students. But when we take into consideration the effect of students’ socio-economic background and cultural participation, the effect of ethnicity on the school results will not be significant.

The results: Attachment 1, Chart 14, shows that the average mark of the native Dutch students is higher than the average mark of the non-native students. The average mark of the native students is 7.34 and the average mark of the non-native students is 7. The Cramer’s V correlation between ethnicity and average marks in groups is 0.24 which means a positive medium correlation. Noteworthy is that the average fathers’ educational level is also higher among the native Dutch students. As we can see in the attachment 1, chart 15, average fathers’ education of the native Dutch students stands at 6.4, while the average fathers’ education among the non-native Dutch students is 5.5. Attachment 1, figure 3, shows that on one hand, more non-native Dutch students have fathers who have had no formal education, while on the other hand, more native Dutch students have had fathers who have completed university education. Attachment 1, chart 16 shows that ethnicity of the students (having a non-native background) has a negative impact on the school results. The unstandardized coefficient for ethnicity is –0.326. When we measure the effect of ethnicity, socio-economic background and the cultural participation of the students on the school results, we see that the effect of ethnicity on the school results is strongly reduced to 0,057 and thus no longer significant. In attachment 1, chart 17, we can see that fathers’ level of education has a standardized effect of 0.30, fathers’ profession is 0.17, mothers’ profession is 0.20, the number of books that parents own is 0.19, students going to museum is 0.12, the students’ reading habits is 0.15, the standardized coefficient for factor 1(students who listened to top 40, but not to classical music) is 0.174, while the standardized coefficient for factor 2(students who listened to Dutch pop but not to blues, jazz, classical, hip hop and rap) is 0.10. Considering these results the seventh hypothesis is accepted.

4

The eighth hypothesis: There is a positive correlation between the schooling level and the reading habits of the students.

The results: The university students’ non-study related average reading activities per week is higher than the students at the vocational colleges. The average non-school related reading activity per week is higher among the college students in comparison with the students who attend the intermediate vocational schools. Attachment 1, chart18 shows that on average, the university students read 3.45, vocational college students read 2.74 and intermediate vocational students read 2.43 hours per week. The spearman correlation between the schooling level and the students’ average hours of reading per week is medium at 0.26. Considering these results, the eighth hypothesis is accepted.

6. Conclusions

The results of this research leads me to conclude that Pierre Bourdieu’s field of cultural production, namely his Social, Cultural and Economic capital theory applies to the students’ school results in Rotterdam 2008. Social, cultural and economic capital play a determining role in the students’ school results. Alebrt Bandura’s Social cognitive theory, in which he asserts that the social environment plays an important role in shaping human behaviour, is valid. Fathers’ education and some of the parental cultural participation practices have a positive effect on the school results of their children. Harry Ganzeboom’s cultural participation theory in which he assert that peoples’ cultural knowledge and skills from their early pedagogical environment, previous education and individual experiences, partially contribute to their abilities in processing new information, also applies to the students and their school results here in Rotterdam.

The societies as well as the dynamics within them change. Therefore the importance of different types of capital in the cultural reproduction process as well as the importance of different types of cultural activities may change from time to time. The results of this research show that unlike fathers’ profession, fathers’ education affects the school results of their children. However, people’s profession is often related to their education and we could also argue that fathers’ profession has become so given, that due to the changed dynamics within the society as well as in a multivariate regression model, other factors such as father’s education as well as mothers’ profession have become more important. Increasingly, more women work to support their families. Although at this time mothers’ education does not affect the school results of their children, in the future the level at which mothers work and its relation to mothers’ educational level may affect the available financial resources(economic capital) and ultimately the school results of their children. Some cultural activities by the students affect their school results positively. Some of the parental cultural participation also affect the school results of their children. The socio-economic background of the students, especially fathers’ education, mothers’ profession and the number of books that parents own, have a positive influence on the students’ school results. The socio-economic background, namely, fathers’ education and profession also have a positive effect on the schooling level of their children. The parental

5

educational level as well as fathers’ level of profession effect the number of books that the parents own positively.

The school results of the female students are slightly higher than the school results of male students, but the significance of the difference in the school results among male and females students disappears when we take into consideration the effect of their cultural participation on their school results. Female students are more culturally active and read more than the male students. Therefore we can conclude that gender in itself has no causal effect on the school results. The average marks of the native students are higher than the non-native students. But when we consider the cultural participation and socio-economic backgrounds, such as father’ education and fathers’ profession, the effect of ethnicity on the school results loses its significance. Therefore we can conclude that ethnicity in itself does not affect the school results of the students. There is a positive medium correlation between the students’ schooling level and their average hours of non school related reading activities. The students at the university level read more than the students at vocational colleges. The students at vocational colleges read more than the students at intermediate vocational schools.

6. 1. Reflections

Conducting this research has been a valuable learning experience for me. I hope to have been able to shed some lights on at least some of the factors that play a determinant role in the students’ school results. Reflecting back on the research process, leads me to mention the following points. Multivariate analysis is a very useful tool for obtaining a broader picture of the social and cultural issues and the interplay of various factors that may be of an influence on those issues. However, the broad picture always leads to more specific questions which my need to be studied closely. For example we could ask how much has really changed when it comes to role models and care takers in the society? Why is it that compared to mothers, the father’s education and cultural participation have a bigger impact on the educational achievements of their children? More focused research is needed in order to find out why some types of cultural participation affect the students’ school results more positively than others.

6

Literature list- Angeneent, Huub. 1998. Opvoeding en persoonlijkheidsontwikkeling, Baarn:

intro.

- Bandura. Albert, 1986, Social Foundations of thought and action, A Social Cognitive Theory, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, INC.

- Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production, Essays on Art and Literature, Oxford: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers.

- Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. La distinction, Critique sociale du jugement, Paris: Minuit.

- Bourdieu, Pierre. 1985. The Genesis of the Concepts of Habitus and Field, sociocriticism perspectives II. Pittsburgh, Pa and Montpellie.

- Bosman, Rie. & Waslander, Sietske.(ed) 2006. Over kansen, Competenties en cohesie. Assen: Van Gorkum.

- Bradshow, Tom. 2004. Survey of public participation in the arts: summary report. Washington: National Endowment for the Arts.

- DiMaggio, P.& T. Mukhtar. 2004. Arts participation as cultural capital in the United States, 1982–2002: Signs of decline? Poetics 32(2):169-194.

- DiMaggio, P.& F. Ostrower. 1990. Participation in the arts by black and white Americans. Social Forces 68:753-778.

- DiMaggio, P. 1982. Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Cultural Participation on the Grades of U.S High School Students. American Sociological Review, Vol. 47, No. 2. pp. 189-201.

- Edgar, Andrew., P, Sedgwick. Cultural theory, The Key Thinkers. 2002, London, Routledge.

7

- Ganzeboom, Harry,1989, Cultuurdeelname in Nederland, Een Empirisch- theoretisch onderzoek naar determinanten van deelname aan culturele activiteiten, Assen/ Maastricht : Van Gorcum.

- Ganzenboom, Harry B.G. (ed) 2003. Jaren van onderscheid, trends in cultuurdeelname in Nederlands. Utrecht: Cultuurnetwerk Nederland.

- Graaf, P. M de, 1987. De Invloed van Financiële en Culturele Hulpbronnen in Onderwijsloopbaan. Nijmegen: Instituut voor Toegepaste Sociale Wetenshappen.

- Huysmans, F., van den Broek, A. & de Haan. J. 2005. Culture-lovers and Culture-leavers. Trends in interest in the arts and cultural heritage in the Netherlands. Den Haag: SCP

- Kraaykamp. G. L. M. 1993. Over lezen gesproken: een studie naar sociale differentiatie in leesgedrag. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

- Macionis. John. J. & Plummer, Ken.1997. Sociology, a global introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

- Nagel, Ineke. , Ganzeboom, Harry. , Haanstra, Folkert. & Oud Wil.1996. Effecten van Kunsteducatie in het voortgezet onderwijs. Amsterdam.

- Seale, Clive(ed) 2004. Researching Society and Culture, London: SAGE publications Ltd.

- Shavit, Yossi. & Arum Richard(ed) 2007. Stratification in higher education: a comparative study. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

- Trienekens, Sandra. 2002. Colorful distinction: the role of ethnicity and ethnic orientation in cultural consumption. Tilburg: Elsevier.

- Pels, D (ed) 1992. Bourdieu. Pierre. Opstellen over smaak, habitus en het veldbegrip. Amsterdam: van Gennep.

- Verhulst, F.C. 1999. De ontwikkeling van het kind, Assen: van Gennep

Internet links and information sources

http://www.jstor.org/view/00380407/di020074/02p0085e/0

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28198204%2947%3A2%3C189%3ACCASST%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

http://www.cos.nl/

http://www.cos.rotterdam.nl/smartsite.dws?id=225138

8

http://www.scp.nl/

http://jeugdmonitor.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/home/default.htm

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/table.asp?STB=G2,G3&LA=nl&DM=SLNL&PA=71172ned&D1=a&D2=0&D3=1-2,5&D4=a,!0&D5=a&HDR=T,G1,G4

http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/_unique/_search/default.htm?cx=018020871965988641477:rvmzjpho2wq&cof=FORID:11&q=inkomen+classificatie+opleidingsniveau#1124

http://www.scp.nl/publicaties/boeken/9037702856/Investeren_in_vermogen-Hoofdstuk_02_Op_weg_naar_een_hogeronderwijsdiploma.pdf

http://www.trouw.nl/deverdieping/opvoeding_onderwijs/article619381.ece/hoger_onderwijs_Allochtone_studenten_staan_er_alleen_voor

http://www.scp.nl/publicaties/boeken/9037702864/Emancipatiemonitor_2006.pdf

http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/ln_binnenland/article651017.ece/Jonge_vrouwen_hoger_opgeleid_dan_jonge_mannen

http://www.trouw.nl/hetnieuws/nederland/article472847.ece/Personeelschef__v_onderbetaald

http://www.scp.nl/publicaties/persberichten/9037702376.shtml

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/3445992D-18FD-4739-B8A5-88F459E25F78/0/2007k2v4p7art.pdf

http://www.intermediair.nl/artikel.jsp?id=144617

http://www.art1.nl/artikel/1927-Ruimtelijke_segregatie_in_Nederland_Factsheet

http://www.minocw.nl/documenten/2198a.pdf

9

Attachment 1Charts and figures

10

Chart 1

Factors: Students' music participation

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6Student listening to Top 40(Pop) .746 -.034 -.067 -.094 -.004 -.083Student listening to Classical Music -.668 -.213 .004 -.103 -.074 -.249Student listening to Dutch Pop -.175 .669 -.098 .031 -.069 .232Student listening to Blues .003 -.583 .009 -.020 .048 .393Student listening to Jazz -.244 -.548 -.054 -.116 -.051 -.061Student listening to Hip-Hop/ Rap .323 .467 .129 -.168 -.072 .036Student listening to Techno .193 -.115 .680 .105 -.032 -.039Student listening to Soul -.211 -.030 .629 -.091 -.073 .097Student listening to Ethnic music -.031 .200 .556 -.091 .079 -.056Student listening to Metal/ Heavy Metal .173 .082 -.024 .740 -.082 .051Student listening to Rock/ Hard Rock -.236 -.023 -.060 .686 .124 -.004Student listening to Dance Hall .152 -.068 -.032 .165 .754 -.254Student listening to Reggae .025 .132 -.178 -.270 .567 .371Student listening to Dance .290 .179 -.287 -.017 -.437 -.013Student listening to Rhythm and Blues .080 .068 .020 .064 -.080 .787

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.Cumulative percent: 51.659

11

Chart 2

Factors: Mothers' music participation

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Mother listening to Ethnic music .765 .104 -.084 .138 -.014 .078 -.038 -.113Mother listening to Country -.667 -.067 -.114 -.113 -.073 .057 -.055 -.111Mother listening to Dutch Pop -.550 -.019 -.113 .475 .091 .073 .087 -.118Mother listening to Jazz -.524 .312 .385 -.215 .134 .027 .171 -.072Mother listening to Dance -.048 .644 -.007 .268 -.058 -.022 -.183 .043Mother listening to (Hard) Rock .275 .623 -.149 -.039 -.055 .153 .211 -.181Mother listening to Lounge -.051 -.004 .693 .020 -.001 -.081 -.151 .141Mother listening to Top 40(Pop) .143 -.191 .579 .068 .024 .219 .092 -.286Mother listening to Folk music .172 .124 .247 .651 .009 .088 .090 .004Mother listening to Dance Hall .221 .092 -.196 .493 .005 -.154 -.269 .052Mother listening to Soul .027 .190 -.015 -.123 -.826 -.019 -.096 .132Mother listening to Classical Music .034 .376 .041 -.249 .589 .047 -.220 .342Mother listening to Blues .262 .115 -.019 -.085 .234 .672 -.030 -.133Mother listening to R&B .320 .265 .229 .002 .073 -.555 .108 -.084Mother listening to Disco -.108 .138 .231 .091 -.110 .538 .050 .171Mother listening to Reggae -.090 -.024 -.045 -.061 -.034 -.019 .776 .049Mother listening to Hip-Hop/ Rap .361 .017 -.090 .240 .239 -.083 .454 .237Mother listening to Techno .081 -.081 .004 .014 -.033 .076 .114 .815

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.Cumulative percent: 57.933

12

Chart 3

Factors: Fathers' music participation

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Father listening to (Hard) Rock .716 .062 -.182 .078 -.265 .005 .016 .115Father listening to Ethnic music -.700 -.053 -.039 -.174 .032 .238 .237 -8.28E-005Father listening to Dutch Pop .642 -.052 .077 -.090 .098 .053 .114 .037Father listening to Country .501 .182 -.292 .130 -.146 .027 .302 -.246Father listening to Classical Music .091 .713 .034 -.140 -.079 -.015 .023 .029Father listening to Reggae -.362 .498 -.008 .162 .039 -.103 .360 -.320Father listening to Hip-Hop/ Rap -.159 -.038 .638 .013 .199 .306 .131 -.029Father listening to Folk music .194 -.085 .637 .061 -.365 -.285 -.100 -.026Father listening to Dance -.124 .394 .549 -.072 .145 .035 .065 .071Father listening to Blues -.050 -.027 -.158 .735 .020 -.015 -.023 .131Father listening to Techno .170 -.065 .180 .658 -.182 -.069 .032 -.092Father listening to R&B -.065 -.046 .055 -.069 .773 -.086 -.012 -.028Father listening to Lounge .116 .428 -.017 .246 -.466 .032 -.212 .091Father listening to Jazz .150 .358 .088 .334 .414 .274 -.250 .147Father listening to Dance Hall -.040 -.014 .058 -.068 -.085 .879 .001 -.019Father listening to Top 40(Pop) .137 -.269 .201 .102 .064 .203 .616 -.033Father listening to Soul -.033 .220 -.046 -.110 -.017 -.120 .613 .203Father listening to Disco .155 -.028 -.021 .171 -.024 .058 .120 .778Father listening to(Heavy)Metal .342 -.145 -.060 .173 .029 .197 -.010 -.433

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.Cumulative percent: 58.276

13

Hypothesis 1:

Chart 4

The influence of students' cultural participation on their average marksModel

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta1 (Constant) 5.371 .000 Student to Museum .390 .170 .002 Student to Historical Buildings .595 .082 .136 Student to Community Theater -.115 -.021 .703 Student to Professional Theater .355 .099 .079 Student to Movies -.018 -.012 .834 Student to Pop Music Concert .028 .013 .811 Factor 1 Student: + Top 40, - Classical. -.011 -.013 .817 Factor 2 S: + Dutch Pop, - Blues, - Jazz, - Hip Hop/ Rap. -.040 -.048 .390 Factor 3 Student: + Techno, + Soul, + Ethnic -.096 -.116 .033 Factor 4 Student + (Heavy) Metal, + (Hard)Rock -.025 -.029 .589 Factor 5 Student: + Dance Hall, + Reggae, - Dance. -.013 -.016 .775 Factor 6 Student: + R&B. .023 .028 .613 Student's average reading per week .172 .335 .000

R Square: .186; Adjusted R Square: .148

14

Hypothesis 2

Chart 5

The influence of parents' cultural participation on the students' school resultsModel

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta1 (Constant) 5.693 .000 Factor 1 Father +(Hard) Rock, +Dutch Pop, +Country, - Ethnic. -.053 -.059 .398 Factor 2 Father: + Classical, +Reggae. .206 .249 .000 Factor 3 Father: + Folk, + Hip Hop/ Rap, +Dance. .076 .091 .109 Factor 4 Fathers' music listening habits: + Blues, + Techno .088 .108 .056 Factor 5 Fathers: + R& B, - Lounge, + Jazz. -.003 -.004 .943 Factor 6 Father: + Dance Hall. -.040 -.048 .376 Factor 7 Fathers: + Top 40, + Soul. .008 .010 .861 Factor 8 Father: + Disco, - Metal, Heavy Metal. -.008 -.010 .856 Factor 1 M: + Ethnic music, - Country, - Dutch Pop, - Jazz. -.069 -.081 .283 Factor 2 Mother: + Rock/ Hard Rock, + Dance. .003 .004 .942 Factor 3 Mothers: + Lounge, + Top 40. .053 .059 .300 Factor 4 Mother: + Folk, + Dance Hall. -.091 -.111 .047 Factor 5 Mother: - Soul, + Classical. -.045 -.055 .304 Factor 6 Mother: + Blues, + Disco, - R & B. .047 .055 .311 Factor 7 Mother: + Hip Hop, + Reggae. .020 .024 .656 Factor 8 Mother: + Techno. .066 .081 .152 Mother of respondent to Museum -.029 -.018 .749 Mother of respondent to Historical Buildings -.133 -.053 .362 Mother of respondent to Community Theater -.304 -.094 .086 Mother of respondent to Professional Theater .226 .089 .138 Mother of respondent to Ballet .333 .099 .093 Mother of respondent to Cabaret .067 .025 .662 Mother of respondent to Movies -.095 -.056 .335 Mother of respondent attending Classical Music Concerts .135 .033 .577 Mother of respondent attending Pop Music Concert .141 .051 .397

15

Father of respondent to Museum .422 .167 .003 Father of respondent to Historical Buildings .225 .063 .283 Father of respondent to Community Theater -.067 -.021 .722 Father of respondent to Professional Theater .202 .074 .198 Father of respondent to Ballet -.495 -.050 .380 Father of respondent to Cabaret .067 .027 .632 Father of respondent to Movies .033 .021 .736 Father of respondent attending Classical Music Concerts -.004 -.001 .990 Father of respondent attending Pop Music Concert .161 .051 .379 Mother's average reading hours per week .052 .097 .078 Father's average reading hours per week .103 .182 .001

R Square: .38; Adjusted R Square: .29

Hypothesis 3

Chart 6

The influence of socio economic background on the students' school resultsModel

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta1 (Constant) 5.460 .000 Father's education .110 .288 .001 Mother's education -.044 -.107 .180 Father's profession .054 .108 .163 Mother's profession .131 .244 .000 Number of books which parents own .176 .232 .000

R Square: .39; Adjusted R Square: .38

Chart 7

The cumulative effect of the socio economic background, parents’ and students’ cultural participation on the students’ school results

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta1 (Constant) 5.330 .000 Father's education .099 .240 .013 Mother's education -.103 -.240 .010 Father's profession .057 .111 .169 Mother's profession .137 .259 .001 The number of books which Parents own .194 .254 .000 Student's average reading per week .059 .115 .033 Mother's average reading hours per week .068 .126 .011 Father's average reading hours per week .059 .103 .065 Mother to Museum -.045 -.028 .586 Mother to Historical Buildings -.221 -.087 .101 Mother to Community Theater -.112 -.034 .496

16

Mother to Professional Theater .055 .020 .717 Mother to Ballet .283 .084 .134 Mother to Cabaret .146 .055 .304 Mother to Movies -.144 -.085 .109 Mother of respondent attending Classical Concerts .047 .012 .826 Mother to Pop Music Concert .106 .038 .487 Father to Museum .319 .125 .017 Father to Historical Buildings -.089 -.024 .646 Father to Community Theater -.077 -.024 .650 Father to Professional Theater .096 .035 .509 Father to Ballet -.448 -.046 .369 Father respondent to Cabaret -.003 -.001 .983 Father respondent to Movies .071 .044 .442 Father to Classical Music Concerts -.167 -.034 .567 Father to Pop Music Concert .030 .009 .857 Respondent to Museum .199 .087 .074 Respondent to Historical Buildings .243 .035 .502 Respondent to Community Theater -.313 -.059 .222 Respondent to Professional Theater .004 .001 .985 Respondent to Movies -.058 -.037 .457 Respondent to Pop Music Concert -.094 -.047 .348 Factor1Father:+(Hard)Rock,+DutchPop,+Country,-Ethnic -.039 -.043 .494 Factor 2 Father: + Classical, +Reggae. .064 .078 .209 Factor 3 Father: + Folk, + Hip Hop/ Rap, +Dance. .062 .074 .160 Factor 4 Father: + Blues, + Techno .012 .015 .770 Factor 5 Father: + R& B, - Lounge, + Jazz. -.016 -.019 .719 Factor 6 Father: + Dance Hall. -.095 -.114 .023 Factor 7 Father: + Top 40, + Soul. -.041 -.049 .328 Factor 8 Fathers': + Disco, - Metal, Heavy Metal. -.013 -.016 .747 Factor 1 Mother:+ EthnicMu, -Country, - Dutch Pop, -Jazz .009 .010 .884 Factor 2 Mother: + Rock/ Hard Rock, + Dance. -.002 -.002 .963 Factor 3 Mother: + Lounge, + Top 40. .041 .046 .394 Factor 4 Mother: + Folk, + Dance Hall. -.085 -.103 .045 Factor 5 Mother: - Soul, + Classical. -.036 -.043 .390 Factor 6 Mother: + Blues, + Disco, - R & B. .067 .078 .112 Factor 7 Mother: + Hip Hop, + Reggae. .020 .024 .621 Factor 8 Mothers + Techno. .056 .068 .193 Factor 1 Student: + Top 40, - Classical. .173 .205 .000 Factor2Student:+DutchPop,-Blues,-Jazz,-HipHop/ Rap .077 .094 .068 Factor 3 Student: + Techno, + Soul, + Ethnic music. -.054 -.066 .189 Factor 4 Student: + Metal/ Heavy Metal, + (Hard) Rock. .086 .096 .055 Factor 5 Student: + Dance Hall, + Reggae, - Dance. -.011 -.012 .805 Factor 6 Student: + R&B. .055 .066 .172

R Square: .58; Adjusted R Square: .47

17

Hypothesis 4

Chart 8

The influence of socio economic background on the schooling levelModel

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta1 (Constant) .584 .000

Father's education .091 .242 .007Mother's education .052 .129 .115Father's profession .152 .313 .000Mother's profession -.047 -.089 .197The number of books which Parents own .026 .036 .564

R Square: .36; Adjusted R Square: .34

Hypothesis 5

Chart 9

The influence of parental profession and educational level on the number of books that they own

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta1 (Constant) 1.569 .000

Father's education .251 .498 .000Mother's education .116 .214 .005Father's profession .037 .057 .448Mother's profession -.078 -.111 .090

R Square: .42; Adjusted R Square: 411

18

Hypothesis 6

Chart 10

Gender- Average marksGender Mean N Std. DeviationMale 7,076 150 ,7996Female 7,283 150 ,8595Total 7,180 300 ,8352

Sig: 0.049

Figure 1

19

9-9,98-8,97-7,96-6,95-5,9

Cou

nt60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Gender- Average marks in groups

FemaleMale

Gender

Chart 11Gender- Average reading per week

Gender Mean N Std. DeviationMale 2,72 148 1,503Female 3,04 148 1,737Total 2,88 296 1,630

Sig: 0.030

Figure 2

20

87654321

Cou

nt50

40

30

20

10

0

Gender- Average reading per week

FemaleMale

Gender

Chart 12

The Influence of gender on school results

Model Unstandardized

CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta1 (Constant) 6,869 ,000 Gender ,207 ,124 ,031

R Square: .015; Adjusted R Square: .012

21

Chart 13

The influence of gender and cultural participation on school results

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Sig.B Beta

(Constant) 5.160 .000

Factor 1 Student: + Top 40, - Classical. -.011 -.013 .820

Factor2 Student:+DutchPop,-Blues,-Jazz,-HipHop/ Rap. -.044 -.052 .344

Factor 3 Student: + Techno, + Soul, + Ethnic music. -.094 -.112 .038

Factor 4 Student: +(Heavy) Metal, + (Hard) Rock. -.026 -.031 .570

Factor 5 Students:+ Dance Hall, + Reggae, - Dance. -.017 -.021 .708

Factor 6 Students' music listening habits: + R&B. .022 .026 .628

Respondent to Museum .375 .164 .003

Respondent to Historical Buildings .599 .083 .133

Respondent to Community Theater -.099 -.018 .743

Respondent to Professional Theater .356 .099 .077

Respondent to Movies -.016 -.010 .849

Respondent attending Pop Music Concert .040 .019 .729

Student's average reading per week .168 .326 .000

Gender .133 .079 .148R Square: .192; Adjusted R Square: 151

Hypothesis 7

Chart 14

Ethnicity- Average markThe ethnicity of student Mean N Std. DeviationNative Dutch 7,343 150 ,8534Non native Dutch 7,017 150 ,7861Total 7,180 300 ,8352

Sig: .002

22

Chart 15

Ethnicity- Average father's educationThe ethnicity of student Mean N Std. DeviationNative Dutch 6,38 149 2,084Non native Dutch 5,50 150 2,207Total 5,94 299 2,187

Sig: .013

Figure 3

WO(University).MBO, MTS(Intermediate vocational

training)

HAVO(Higher general secondary education).

MAVO(middle general secondary education).

No formal education

Cou

nt

40

30

20

10

0

Correlation Ethnicity-Average father's education

Non native DutchNative Dutch

The ethnicity of student

Chart 16

The influence of ethnicity on the school resultsModel

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta

23

1 (Constant) 7,669 ,000 The ethnicity of student -,326 -,195 ,001

R Square: .038; Adjusted R Square: 035

Chart 17

The effect of ethnicity on the school results taking into account socio economic background and cultural participation of the students

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients Sig.

B Beta1 (Constant) 5,188 ,000 Father's education ,114 ,297 ,001 Mother's education -,031 -,074 ,355 Father's profession ,083 ,168 ,033 Mother's profession ,106 ,195 ,004 Student's average reading per week ,079 ,154 ,001 The number of books which Parents own ,140 ,185 ,002 Respondent to Museum ,267 ,117 ,011 Respondent to Historical Buildings ,264 ,036 ,428 Respondent to Community Theater -,348 -,063 ,165 Respondent to Professional Theater ,026 ,007 ,879 Respondent to Movies ,003 ,002 ,964 Respondent attending Pop Music Concert -,112 -,054 ,243 Factor 1 Student: + Top 40, - Classical. ,146 ,174 ,000 Factor2Student:+DutchPop,-Blues,-Jazz,-HipHop/ Rap. ,081 ,097 ,042 Factor 3 Student + Techno, + Soul, + Ethnic music. -,073 -,088 ,058 Factor 4 Students: +(Heavy)Metal, +(Hard) Rock. -,013 -,015 ,743 Factor5Student:+DanceHall,+Reggae, -Dance -,019 -,023 ,615 Factor 6 Student: + R&B. ,061 ,073 ,111 The ethnicity of student -,057 -,034 ,507

R Square: .47; Adjusted R Square: .44

Hypothesis 8

Chart 18

Schooling level- Students' average non study related reading per weekThe schooling Level Mean N Std. DeviationMBO(Intermediate vocational training) 2.43 99 1.451

HBO(Vocational college) 2.74 97 1.550University 3.45 100 1.720

24

Total 2.88 296 1.630Sig: .00

Chart 19

Correlation between students' average hours of non school related reading activities per week and their schooling Level

Value

Asymp. Std.

Error(a)Approx.

T(b)Approx.

Sig.Nominal by Nominal

Phi .291 .033Cramer's V .206 .033

Interval by Interval Pearson's R .256 .054 4.542 .000(c)Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .258 .055 4.584 .000(c)N of Valid Cases 296

a Not assuming the null hypothesis.b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.c Based on normal approximation.

25

Attachments 2

The survey questionnaire and the cover page in Dutch

26

Beste student,

Ik verricht momenteel onderzoek voor mijn master thesis bij de opleiding Kunst en Cultuurwetenschappen aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Ik bestudeer de relatie tussen school, gezin en vrije tijd onder Rotterdamse scholieren. Ik zou je daarom graag een aantal vragen stellen over de culturele voorkeuren en favoriete vrijtijdsbesteding van jou en van je ouders. Ook zijn er enkele vragen opgenomen over jouw opleiding. Zou je deze enquête tijdens de pauze of vlak na het college in willen vullen en aan mij terug geven? Ik sta buiten de collegezaal met een doos.

De enquêtes zijn anoniem en worden door niemand anders dan mijzelf bekeken. Na afloop van mijn onderzoek zullen alle vragenlijsten worden vernietigd.

Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor je medewerking.

Vriendelijk groet,Khosrow Zeekamp

VragenlijstCultuur vrijetijdsbesteding van de studenten en hun ouders gedurende afgelopen jaar

(Omcirkel het cijfer behorend bij het juiste antwoord)1- Op welke niveau studeer je?

1- MBO/ beroepsonderwijs.2- HBO/ hoger beroepsonderwijs.3- Universiteit/ academisch onderwijs.

2- Hoe ver ben je met je studie?

1- Eerste jaar.2- Tweede jaar, eerste jaar is helemaal afgerond.3- Tweede jaar, maar eerste jaar is nog niet helemaal afgerond. 4- Derde jaar, eerdere jaren zijn helemaal afgerond.

27

5- Derde jaar, maar eerdere jaren zijn nog niet helemaal afgerond

3- Wat is je geslacht?

1- Man.2- Vrouw.

4- Ben je in Nederland geboren? En zijn je ouders in Nederland geboren? Zo niet waar dan?

Jezelf: 1- Ja 2- Nee, Ik ben geboren in---------------------------------

Je moeder: 1- Ja 2- Nee, mijn moeder is geboren in----------------------

Je vader: 1- Ja 2- Nee, Mijn vader is geboren in-------------------------

5- Wat is de hoogst afgeronde opleiding van je ouders? Plaats het juiste nummer uit het onderstaande rijtje met opleidingsniveaus op de stippellijn.

Moeder: ………………………… Vader:…………………….

1- Geen opleiding genoten.2- Basisonderwijs/ lagere school).3- MAVO (middelbaar algemeen voortgezet onderwijs).4- BO/ LTS (beroepsonderwijs/ lagere technische school).5- HAVO(Hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs).6- VWO (Voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs: atheneum gymnasium).7- MBO, MTS( middelbaar beroepsonderwijs, middelbaar technisch onderwijs).8- HBO(Hoger beroepsonderwijs).9- WO (Universiteit).

6- In welke van onderstaande categorieën valt het beroep van je vader?Als je het beroep niet in een categorie kunt plaatsen, geef dan a.u.b. op de stippellijn bij de cijfer 8 in je eigen woorden aan om welke beroep het gaat.

1- Mijn vader verricht geen betaalde arbeid.2- Ongeschoolde of semi-geschoolde hand- arbeider. 3- Geschoolde handarbeider, toezichthouder, voorman of chef van groep handarbeiders.4- Administratief werk, kantoorwerk, ambtenaar.5- Middelbaar zelfstandig ondernemer, werkt voor eigen rekening(vb restaurant, taxibedrijf, bouw).6- Hoger zelfstandig ondernemer(vb. arts. advocaat, architect)7- Hoge ambtenaar, hooggeschoold specialist.8- Anders, namelijk----------------------------------------------------------------7- In welke van onderstaande categorieën valt het beroep van je moeder?Als je het beroep niet in een categorie kunt plaatsen, geef dan a.u.b. op de stippellijn bij de cijfer 8 in je eigen woorden aan om welke beroep het gaat.

1- Mijn moeder verricht geen betaalde arbeid.2- Ongeschoolde of semi-geschoolde hand- arbeider. 3- Geschoolde handarbeider, toezichthouder, voorman of chef van groep handarbeiders.4- Administratief werk, kantoorwerk, ambtenaar.5- Middelbaar zelfstandig ondernemer, werkt voor eigen rekening(vb restaurant, taxibedrijf, bouw).6- Hoger zelfstandig ondernemer(vb. arts. advocaat, architect)7- Hoge ambtenaar, hooggeschoold specialist.8- Anders, namelijk----------------------------------------------------------------

8- Naar wat voor soort muziek luisteren je ouders graag? En hoe vaak? (Omcirkel het cijfer behorende bij het juiste antwoord)

28

Moeder: - Klassiek. Hoe vaak?----------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Top 40(pop). Hoe vaak?----------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Nederlandse Pop. Hoe vaak?-----------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Country. Hoe vaak?------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Reggae. Hoe vaak?------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Jazz. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Blues. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Folk muziek. Hoe vaak?-------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Rock/ hard rock. Hoe vaak?--------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Metal/Heavy metal. Hoe vaak?----------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Techno. Hoe vaak?-------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Hip Hop/Rap. Hoe vaak?------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Lounge. Hoe vaak?-------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Soul. Hoe vaak?-----------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- R&B. Hoe vaak?-----------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Dance. Hoe vaak?--------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Disco. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Dance Hall. Hoe vaak?--------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Etnisch muziek(specifieke volk muziek- van andere landen). Hoe vaak?--------------------- 1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)

Vader:- Klassiek. Hoe vaak?----------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Top 40(pop). Hoe vaak?----------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Nederlandse Pop. Hoe vaak?-----------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Country. Hoe vaak?------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Reggae. Hoe vaak?-------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Jazz. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Blues. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Folk muziek. Hoe vaak?-------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Rock/ hard rock. Hoe vaak?-------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Metal/Heavy metal. Hoe vaak?----------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Techno. Hoe vaak?------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Hip Hop/Rap. Hoe vaak?-----------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Lounge. Hoe vaak?------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Soul. Hoe vaak?----------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- R&B. Hoe vaak?----------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Dance. Hoe vaak?--------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Disco. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Dance Hall. Hoe vaak?--------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Etnisch muziek(specifieke volk muziek- van andere landen). Hoe vaak?--------------------- 1(nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)9- Hoeveel keer in de afgelopen 12 maanden zijn je ouders naar de volgende culturele activiteiten geweest? (Omcirkel het cijfer behorende bij het juiste antwoord )

Moeder:

Naar museum:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar historische gebouwen:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)

4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar wijktheater: 1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar professioneel theater:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)

29

4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

Naar ballet:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

Naar cabaret:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)

3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer) Naar bioscoop:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar klassiek muziek concert:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar pop concert: 1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

Vader:

Naar museum:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar historische gebouwen:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

Naar wijktheater: 1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar professioneel theater:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

Naar ballet:1-(geen een keer)

2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)

30

4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

Naar cabaret:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

Naar bioscoop:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)

3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar klassiek muziek concert:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar pop concert: 1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

10- Kun je een schatting maken van het aantal boeken dat je ouders in huis hebben? (Omcirkel het cijfer behorende bij het juiste antwoord)

1- (0 - 10 boeken)

2- (11 - 20 boeken).

3- (21 - 50 boeken).

4- (51- 100 boeken).

5- (Meer dan 100 boeken).

11- Wat voor soort boeken lezen je ouders graag?

Moeder: -------------------------------------------- Vader: -------------------------------------------

1- Science Fiction. 5- Mysteries. 9- Romantische boeken.2- Thrillers. 6- Detectives. 10- Literaire boeken.3- Historisch boeken. 7- Wetenschappelijk.4- Biografieën. 8- Poëzie/gedichten.

12- Hoeveel uren per week besteden je ouders gemiddeld aan het lezen? (Inclusief kranten en tijdschriften)

Moeder: ------------ Vader: -------------

13- Naar wat voor soort muziek luister je graag? En hoe vaak? Je kunt kiezen uit meerdere muzieksoorten.

- Klassiek. Hoe vaak?----------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Top 40(pop). Hoe vaak?----------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Nederlandse Pop. Hoe vaak?-----------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Country. Hoe vaak?------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Reggae. Hoe vaak?-------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Jazz. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Blues. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Folk muziek. Hoe vaak?-------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Rock/ hard rock. Hoe vaak?-------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Metal/Heavy metal. Hoe vaak?----------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Techno. Hoe vaak?------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Hip Hop/Rap. Hoe vaak?-----------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Lounge. Hoe vaak?------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)

31

- Soul. Hoe vaak?----------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- R&B. Hoe vaak?----------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Dance. Hoe vaak?--------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Disco. Hoe vaak?---------------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Dance Hall. Hoe vaak?--------------------1( nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)- Etnisch muziek(specifieke volk muziek- van andere landen). Hoe vaak?--------------------- 1(nooit), 2(weinig), 3-(matig), 4(vaak), 5(heel vaak)

14- Hoe vaak heb je in de afgelopen 12 maanden deelgenomen aan de volgende activiteiten?

Naar museum:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar historische gebouwen:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer) Naar wijktheater: 1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar professioneel theater:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

Naar ballet:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar cabaret:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar bioscoop:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar klassiek muziek concert:1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)Naar pop concert: 1-(geen een keer) 2-(1-5 keer)3-(6-10 keer)4-(11-15 keer)5-(16- 20 keer)

15- Wat is de hoofdtaal die gesproken wordt in je ouderslijk thuis?

---------------------

16- Wat voor soort boeken lees je graag? --------------------------- 1- Science Fiction. 5- Mysteries. 9- Romantische boeken.2- Thrillers. 6- Detectives. 10- Literaire boeken.3- Historisch boeken. 7- Wetenschappelijk4- Biografieën. 8- Poëzie/gedichten.

17- Buiten de boeken die je voor je studie gebruikt, hoeveel uren besteed je gemiddeld per week aan lezen?

Gemiddeld aantal uren lezen per week: -------------------

32

18- In vergelijking met mijn klasgenoten, haal ik

1- bijna altijd lagere cijfers.2- vaak lagere cijfers.3- ongeveer dezelfde cijfers.4- vaak wat hogere cijfers.6- bijna altijd hogere cijfers.

19- Wat is het gemiddelde cijfer van alle vakken van afgelopen studieblok?

--------------------

Hartelijk bedankt voor je medewerking. Succes met je studie.

33